The arguments for and against elected term-limits are virtually the same for local, state and federal government.
The core issue is that incumbents are overwhelmingly favored in elections.
Proponents of term limits argue that they have non-partisan support.
Long elected service corrupts incumbents, making them exhausted, bored, arrogant and ethically complacent.
Incumbents are unaccountable and don't challenge other incumbents in elections.
Incumbents have recognition and special interest money unmatchable by challengers.
Newly elected officials can undo the other party's gerrymandering.
"Citizen legislators" will replace "Lifetime politicians", ensuring diverse views and expertise.
Term limits constrain big machine politics.
Proponents refute opponent claims that lobbyists corrupt new candidates more easily than incumbents.
Some favor term-limits reluctantly; saying government is gridlocked by caution, incumbency protection and special interests immune to reform.
Reasonable terms are needed to develop experience.
Until challengers compete more equally, term limits will be imposed, and oust good officials.
Those opposed say term limits undemocratically eliminate voter choice and violate the Voting Rights Act.
Women and Latinos will have a harder time staying in office.
There will be fewer middle-aged candidates.
Term limits strengthen bureaucracies and increase conflict-of-interest pressures.
Term limited officials focus on short-term issues, not long-term solutions.
When minority parties use term limits to get better represented, they undermine the separation of powers.
Opponents rebut proponents' claims.
"New" is not "better".
Experience in office is not a liability.
Voters can kick out bad officials.
Term limits per se don't improve government process.
Term limits increase special interest power.
